Classical philosophy and Darwinian biology are far more compatible than is usually assumed. In fact, looking at either from the standpoint of the other can enrich and deepen our appreciation of both. From a Darwinian point of view, the theories of Plato and Aristotle deserve to be taken very seriously. From the classical point of view, Darwinian biology is much less reductionist than its enemies suppose.

Friday, January 3, 2014

The State of the State of Nature

It looks like I will be on sabbatical
next fall, which is a good thing.I am
working on two research papers: one on the evolution of autonomy (for the
International Political Science Association meeting in Montreal) and the other
on state of nature theory (for the American Political Science Association
meeting in D.C.)I have also been
invited to contribute a chapter to a “handbook of biology and politics” to be
published next year.My chapter will
concern political ethics and biology.My
sabbatical will allow me the leisure to work the papers into publishable form
and work on the book chapter.

As it happens, I am teaching
modern political philosophy this spring and I decided to introduce a little biopolitics
into the course.My usual list of
readings includes Machiavelli’s Prince,
Hobbes Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise, and Rousseau’s “Discourse
on Inequality”.It occurred to me that
the last three, at least, all involve conceptions of the state of nature, i.e.
the condition of human beings outside of the influence of government, and that
this is something that modern biopolitical theory has something to say
about.

Accordingly I have added
Christopher Boehm’s Hierarchy in the
Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior to the reading list.I don’t know why this hasn’t occurred to me
before now, but I must be on to something.Boehm mentions Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in the first few pages of his
book.I plan to focus the presentation
of all three authors on the question of how human nature and human action give
rise to political societies and what light contemporary biopolitical research
sheds on such questions as whether and in what ways human beings are by nature
moral or immoral, cooperative or competitive, inclined toward hierarchy or
equality.That is roughly the theme of
my APSA paper.

Treating the early modern state
of nature theories in light of contemporary anthropology requires an apology
before any jury that is well versed in the former.Rousseau clearly intended to speculate about
the origins of human societies, though he was very careful to warn the reader
about just how speculative his account was.Neither Hobbes nor Locke intended their descriptions of the state of
nature to be speculations about prehistorical conditions.They were abstracting backwards, trying to
understand the essential character of government by removing its influence, in
thought, from human beings as they knew them to be.

It occurs to me now that what
the early modern philosophers were doing was, rather oddly, the opposite of
what Plato did in his two longest dialogues: the Republic and the Laws.Plato (or his Socrates and Athenian Stranger)
tried to understand the nature of politics by abstracting toward a more perfect
regime that could exist but that had never existed and probably never
would.Plato removes the imperfections
and inconveniences.The early moderns
worked in the opposite direction, imaging a state that may or may not have
existed in the past.The chief
difference in the ancients and moderns thus lies in this: the moderns could
imagine human beings existing in the absence of laws and government whereas the
ancients could not.

The chief difference between
Hobbes and Locke on the one hand and Rousseau on the other is that the former
concluded that government and laws marked an improvement in the human condition
whereas Rousseau thought pre-civilization was better for all or almost all
human beings.Almost as important,
Hobbes and Locke supposed that human beings are naturally social even if they
are not naturally political whereas Rousseau concluded that even social
interaction beyond the most basic biological needs is an accident of
history.Finally, Hobbes supposed that
human beings were by nature amoral and violently competitive.Government is necessary to manage the
violence that results from this.Locke
thought that human beings are by nature moral animals and that our very sense
of righteous indignation is what must be managed by government.

It seems to me that the time
has come to work the modern strategy in reverse.What does contemporary research on the actual
condition of man prior to civilization tell us about the nature of
politics?Who is closer to the truth:
Plato or the early moderns, Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau?

Christopher Boehm believes that
human nature includes tendencies both towards hierarchy and
egalitarianism.Once human beings or our
ancestors began to live in bands or tribes, powerful and aggressive individuals
were naturally inclined to bully others.These early societies developed in the direction of egalitarianism as
the groups came to effectively resist such bullies.

In egalitarian societies… individuals who otherwise would be
subordinated are clever enough to form a large and united political coalition,
and they do so for the express purpose of keeping the strong from dominating
the weak…

I also incorporate an important evolutionary twist.Rather than concentrating simply on the
effects of human nature on political behavior, I also explore the reverse: the
long-term effects of human political behavior on human nature…

My main hypothesis is that egalitarian societies are created
and maintained by moral communities.

Rousseau was wrong.Human animals became social animals long
before they became human.Locke was
closer to the truth than Hobbes, but Hobbes had a point.Our ancestors were prone to violent competition
for resources and status and sought some way to manage such tendencies.That management was by means of coalitions
that were not merely expedient.They
were moral communities, maintained over a long enough period to affect our
evolution.Plato (and I would add,
Aristotle) were closer to the truth than the moderns.Human beings are political animals.